Biomechanical analysis of different implant-abutments interfaces in different bone types: An in silico analysis
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2018 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Institucional da UNESP |
Texto Completo: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2018.05.012 http://hdl.handle.net/11449/176291 |
Resumo: | The purpose of this study was to analyze the stress distribution of bone tissue around implants with different implant-abutment interfaces: platform switching (PSW); external hexagon (EH) and Morse taper (MT) with different diameters (regular: Ø 4 mm and wide: Ø 5 mm), bone types (I–IV) and subjected to axial and oblique load conditions using three-dimensional finite element analysis (3D-FEA). Sixteen 3D models of various configurations were simulated using InVesalius, Rhinoceros 3D 4.0, and SolidWorks 2011 software, and processed using Femap 11.2 and NeiNastran 11.0 programs. Axial and oblique forces of 200 N and 100 N, respectively, applied at the occlusal surface of prostheses. Maximum principal stress values were obtained from the peri-implant cortical bone of each model. Statistical analyses were performed using ANOVA and Tukey's test for maximum principal stress values. Oblique loading showed higher tensile stress than axial loading (P < 0.001). Wide-diameter implants showed lower stress concentration rather than regular-diameter implants, regardless of both connection and bone type (P < 0.001). Under axial loading, wide-diameter EH implants with regular platforms showed more favorable stress distribution than PSW implants for axial loading (P < 0.001); however, under oblique loading, PSW implants exhibited lower stress concentrations (P < 0.001). Regular-diameter MT implants showed lower stress than EH implants (P < 0.001). Bone type IV showed higher stress in the cortical region than bone types I and II (P < 0.001), but no significant difference when compared with bone type III (P > 0.05). The conclusion drawn from this in silico is that MT implants should be considered for use in situations that preclude the placement of wide-diameter implants, particularly where bone types III and IV are concerned. |
id |
UNSP_22e3e18c7c46cfab9f358498a1842bc5 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/176291 |
network_acronym_str |
UNSP |
network_name_str |
Repositório Institucional da UNESP |
repository_id_str |
2946 |
spelling |
Biomechanical analysis of different implant-abutments interfaces in different bone types: An in silico analysisBone typeDiameterFinite elementImplant-abutment interfacesThe purpose of this study was to analyze the stress distribution of bone tissue around implants with different implant-abutment interfaces: platform switching (PSW); external hexagon (EH) and Morse taper (MT) with different diameters (regular: Ø 4 mm and wide: Ø 5 mm), bone types (I–IV) and subjected to axial and oblique load conditions using three-dimensional finite element analysis (3D-FEA). Sixteen 3D models of various configurations were simulated using InVesalius, Rhinoceros 3D 4.0, and SolidWorks 2011 software, and processed using Femap 11.2 and NeiNastran 11.0 programs. Axial and oblique forces of 200 N and 100 N, respectively, applied at the occlusal surface of prostheses. Maximum principal stress values were obtained from the peri-implant cortical bone of each model. Statistical analyses were performed using ANOVA and Tukey's test for maximum principal stress values. Oblique loading showed higher tensile stress than axial loading (P < 0.001). Wide-diameter implants showed lower stress concentration rather than regular-diameter implants, regardless of both connection and bone type (P < 0.001). Under axial loading, wide-diameter EH implants with regular platforms showed more favorable stress distribution than PSW implants for axial loading (P < 0.001); however, under oblique loading, PSW implants exhibited lower stress concentrations (P < 0.001). Regular-diameter MT implants showed lower stress than EH implants (P < 0.001). Bone type IV showed higher stress in the cortical region than bone types I and II (P < 0.001), but no significant difference when compared with bone type III (P > 0.05). The conclusion drawn from this in silico is that MT implants should be considered for use in situations that preclude the placement of wide-diameter implants, particularly where bone types III and IV are concerned.Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics Araçatuba Dental School UNESP - Univ Estadual PaulistaDepartment of Health Sciences University of Sacred Heart – USCDepartment of Restorative Dentistry Federal University of AlfenasDepartment Prosthodontics Presidente Prudente Dental School University of Western São Paulo - UNOESTEDepartment of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics Araçatuba Dental School UNESP - Univ Estadual PaulistaFAPESP: 09/16164-7CNPq: 303874/2010-4Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)University of Sacred Heart – USCFederal University of AlfenasUniversity of Western São Paulo - UNOESTEPellizzer, Eduardo P. [UNESP]Lemos, Cleidiel A.A. [UNESP]Almeida, Daniel A.F.de Souza Batista, Victor E. [UNESP]Santiago Júnior, Joel F.Verri, Fellippo R. [UNESP]2018-12-11T17:19:58Z2018-12-11T17:19:58Z2018-09-01info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/article645-650application/pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2018.05.012Materials Science and Engineering C, v. 90, p. 645-650.0928-4931http://hdl.handle.net/11449/17629110.1016/j.msec.2018.05.0122-s2.0-850466710722-s2.0-85046671072.pdfScopusreponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESPinstname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)instacron:UNESPengMaterials Science and Engineering C1,110info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2023-10-06T06:01:35Zoai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/176291Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttp://repositorio.unesp.br/oai/requestopendoar:29462024-08-05T14:07:47.825600Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Biomechanical analysis of different implant-abutments interfaces in different bone types: An in silico analysis |
title |
Biomechanical analysis of different implant-abutments interfaces in different bone types: An in silico analysis |
spellingShingle |
Biomechanical analysis of different implant-abutments interfaces in different bone types: An in silico analysis Pellizzer, Eduardo P. [UNESP] Bone type Diameter Finite element Implant-abutment interfaces |
title_short |
Biomechanical analysis of different implant-abutments interfaces in different bone types: An in silico analysis |
title_full |
Biomechanical analysis of different implant-abutments interfaces in different bone types: An in silico analysis |
title_fullStr |
Biomechanical analysis of different implant-abutments interfaces in different bone types: An in silico analysis |
title_full_unstemmed |
Biomechanical analysis of different implant-abutments interfaces in different bone types: An in silico analysis |
title_sort |
Biomechanical analysis of different implant-abutments interfaces in different bone types: An in silico analysis |
author |
Pellizzer, Eduardo P. [UNESP] |
author_facet |
Pellizzer, Eduardo P. [UNESP] Lemos, Cleidiel A.A. [UNESP] Almeida, Daniel A.F. de Souza Batista, Victor E. [UNESP] Santiago Júnior, Joel F. Verri, Fellippo R. [UNESP] |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Lemos, Cleidiel A.A. [UNESP] Almeida, Daniel A.F. de Souza Batista, Victor E. [UNESP] Santiago Júnior, Joel F. Verri, Fellippo R. [UNESP] |
author2_role |
author author author author author |
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp) University of Sacred Heart – USC Federal University of Alfenas University of Western São Paulo - UNOESTE |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Pellizzer, Eduardo P. [UNESP] Lemos, Cleidiel A.A. [UNESP] Almeida, Daniel A.F. de Souza Batista, Victor E. [UNESP] Santiago Júnior, Joel F. Verri, Fellippo R. [UNESP] |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Bone type Diameter Finite element Implant-abutment interfaces |
topic |
Bone type Diameter Finite element Implant-abutment interfaces |
description |
The purpose of this study was to analyze the stress distribution of bone tissue around implants with different implant-abutment interfaces: platform switching (PSW); external hexagon (EH) and Morse taper (MT) with different diameters (regular: Ø 4 mm and wide: Ø 5 mm), bone types (I–IV) and subjected to axial and oblique load conditions using three-dimensional finite element analysis (3D-FEA). Sixteen 3D models of various configurations were simulated using InVesalius, Rhinoceros 3D 4.0, and SolidWorks 2011 software, and processed using Femap 11.2 and NeiNastran 11.0 programs. Axial and oblique forces of 200 N and 100 N, respectively, applied at the occlusal surface of prostheses. Maximum principal stress values were obtained from the peri-implant cortical bone of each model. Statistical analyses were performed using ANOVA and Tukey's test for maximum principal stress values. Oblique loading showed higher tensile stress than axial loading (P < 0.001). Wide-diameter implants showed lower stress concentration rather than regular-diameter implants, regardless of both connection and bone type (P < 0.001). Under axial loading, wide-diameter EH implants with regular platforms showed more favorable stress distribution than PSW implants for axial loading (P < 0.001); however, under oblique loading, PSW implants exhibited lower stress concentrations (P < 0.001). Regular-diameter MT implants showed lower stress than EH implants (P < 0.001). Bone type IV showed higher stress in the cortical region than bone types I and II (P < 0.001), but no significant difference when compared with bone type III (P > 0.05). The conclusion drawn from this in silico is that MT implants should be considered for use in situations that preclude the placement of wide-diameter implants, particularly where bone types III and IV are concerned. |
publishDate |
2018 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2018-12-11T17:19:58Z 2018-12-11T17:19:58Z 2018-09-01 |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2018.05.012 Materials Science and Engineering C, v. 90, p. 645-650. 0928-4931 http://hdl.handle.net/11449/176291 10.1016/j.msec.2018.05.012 2-s2.0-85046671072 2-s2.0-85046671072.pdf |
url |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2018.05.012 http://hdl.handle.net/11449/176291 |
identifier_str_mv |
Materials Science and Engineering C, v. 90, p. 645-650. 0928-4931 10.1016/j.msec.2018.05.012 2-s2.0-85046671072 2-s2.0-85046671072.pdf |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
Materials Science and Engineering C 1,110 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
645-650 application/pdf |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Scopus reponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESP instname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) instacron:UNESP |
instname_str |
Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) |
instacron_str |
UNESP |
institution |
UNESP |
reponame_str |
Repositório Institucional da UNESP |
collection |
Repositório Institucional da UNESP |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
_version_ |
1808128319307120640 |